tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-308508372024-03-13T23:47:13.349-07:00My BlogErichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-3816916245965345402013-04-03T07:20:00.001-07:002013-04-03T07:20:17.352-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">That's no moon, it's a space station!</span><br />
<br />
Get ready for the lame stream media (I know I shouldn't but I couldn't
resist) to get everything wrong again when Facebook announces its new
smartphone app/OS on Thursday. There will be talk about mobile migration,
screen real estate and less intrusive/more useful advertising. Nothing you
have not heard a billion times before because the people who tend to get invited to the swish corporate events where these things are announced are apparently incapable of looking beyond what you put in front of their face.<br />
<br />
The British press, in particular, does not seem to have yet got to
grips with the fact that Silicon Valley companies THINK BIG! So let's
try it: Facebook is moving into the mobile telecoms space as part of a grand
plan to become a carrier. That's right, it's going to side step the entire
mobile phones war sideshow by making the OS an irrelevance.<br />
<br />
The clues are all there if one knows where to look. Namely: Africa. There are already
more than 500 million mobile phone subscriptions in Africa. More than 40
percent of Kenyan GDP flows through a mobile money service called M-Pesa (owned by Vodaphone).
And by far the most important mobile brands are Facebook, Google, Nokia and the Chinese network vendor and
consumer electronics giant Huawei.<br />
<br />
Facebook already subsidises smartphone sales in Africa by paying carriers to
provide Facebook for free on select handsets and data packages. Don't send a text or SMS, use Facebook to send the same message for free. Of course, in order for
consumers to take advantage of this offer, individuals and their friends must
first join Facebook. This has helped to generate enormous goodwill and brand
value that will make the switch to fully fledged carrier service seem trivial. If all of your most important communications are already routed via
Facebook, why not place it at the centre of your entire information
ecosystem?<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Facebook has co-hosting deals with several of the largest local
data centre and Cloud service providers capable of storing up-to-date
versions of all the most visited websites (besides Facebook) in a local
cache, thereby easing congestion on the long fibres that provide the only
reliable connection to these rapidly emerging economies while also cutting the cost
of terminating international traffic. In other words, Facebook already makes the entire 'Internet experience' available to many African consumers at a fraction of the price and with
superior quality of service than any locally based alternative. Even if this
involves a small subsidy over the longer term, Facebook will still be able
to hoover up all that lovely consumer data shareholders seem to value so
highly (why else do they keep buying stock?)<br />
<br />
Still not convinced? Okay, Facebook has been working closely
with Microsoft for several years now. Facebook is integrated into the latest Windows mobile OS in
a very clever way. It is also integrated into the latest version of Office - Word, Excel, Access.
Meanwhile, a couple of years ago Microsoft bought an IP telephony service you may have heard of called Skype,
which is also starting to interact with Facebook in interesting ways. Now are you
beginning to see the possibilities? Don't think OS or App Store (those can
come later), Zuckerberg is thinking much, much bigger: the entire Web inside
a Facebook homepage, accessible via multiple devices and software platforms, with Facebook in the
background running big data analytics and plotting to take over the
world!
Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-79440674032869778372013-01-22T12:46:00.001-08:002013-01-22T23:38:33.491-08:00<div>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Putting my head above the parapet</span></div>
<div>
<br />
Facebook's latest unwanted privacy intrusion. Sorry, no, no.
Let me start again. Facebook's latest 'product' innovation was last week greeted by widespread bemusement but no shortage of flim-flam. All of the reports in the mainstream media agreed that Mark
Zuckerberg had announced something called Graph Search but the detail was - how should one say? - a little bit hazy. Some journalists suggested Zuck is positioning Facebook to compete with Google in the search
advertising market
(he isn't; he may have a long term plan to introduce a more
sophisticated search product but that is a different story). Others suggested Graph Search
may help
Mark 'monetise' the site - how this might achieved was vague to say
the least.</div>
<div>
<br />
What the old media failed to grasp was the heart of the story: Mark Zuckerberg's failure to confront the truth about what he has created. Not what he would like to have created or what the shareholders would have liked him to have created or even what the site might
one day become, but what Facebook *is* as it exists today. Here is a clue:
it is the title of an Oscar winning movie
about an awkward American college student who creates the world's most popular
website. Hold that
thought. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
I have been thinking about this since before the miserable IPO but I
think now is the time to go on the record with a prediction that will almost certainly leave
me with egg on my face (as almost every prediction is wont to do) in years to come <br />
<br />
Right,
here it is:</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
Facebook will never make any real money. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
Ever. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
There it is. And, before you pile in, US$3 billion is not 'real'
money - in Silicon Valley terms - when you have a user base of more than one billion
people worldwide. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
Google gobbles up more than half of all Internet advertising dollars,
leaving scraps for everybody else - outside of the English-speaking or even the
Western world things are a bit different, but, I digress. The point is first-mover
advantage combined with 'enhanced network effects' make it very difficult for
anyone (even Facebook) to compete with Google in the online advertising market.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
What Facebook would really like to do (it would seem) is SELL YOUR DATA,
which, it wants to claim as FACEBOOK's data!!! </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
However, consumer advocacy groups and (more importantly)
independent
Facebook watchers are quick to pounce on any explicitly privacy-related
announcements and frequently force Facebook into humiliating
climb downs. See the Instagram controversy just before Christmas, when
Facebook tried to claim ownership of every image ever uploaded to the
service in perpetuity. There was a mass exodus of users and, despite the
climbdown, users are still drifting away.</div>
<div>
<br />
I think it is helpful to think about it like this: Facebook users
are like squatters, while Facebook is like an exploitative landlord who thought he
could entice the hippies and the students with the promise of free
rent and board, but who now cannot figure out how to squeeze any money
out of his dungeon hoards. The squatters have no
rights and are vulnerable to coercion or eviction. But, provided the
landlord lacks the will to use force, they have little to fear. Plus, if
the landlord gets too heavy handed, the squatters can just up and leave
- the only thing that keeps them where they are is the conspiracy of
silence amongst their friends about their awful living conditions.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
The situation is very finely balanced. The landlord has put cameras
in the
ceiling and microphones under the floorboards. The squatters put up with
this because the roof over their heads are still free and the only noticeable aspect of the intrusion is the junk mail that corresponds to
their conversations. But that is easily ignored and, what is the harm?
Meanwhile, the landlord is loosing money and the banks are getting
nervous about whether posting junk mail through the squatter's letter
box is going to every repay their loans. <br />
<br />
The landlord has a few
options, none of which are particularly
desirable. If he gives the squatters the same rights as residents he
will have to take out the cameras and the microphones, but their is
still no guarantee the squatters will pay the rent he would like to
charge. If he ups the level of junk mail the squatters may leave
regardless.</div>
<div>
<br />
There is no way out of this quandary without fundamental reform of
the entire squatter-landlord relationship. But that carries with it too
much of a risk for Facebook to countenance. Hence the battle for 'hearts and
minds'. The landlord wants to convince the squatters he has changed,
without
actually doing anything of the sort. So, he promises the squatters all
of the advantages of tenanthood - electricity, running water, waste
disposal - along with a whole host of new electronic toys and games:
higher resolution CCTV cameras, infrared detection systems and geolocative tagging for
every item in the house, provided the squatters accept more and shinier junk
mail as a pre-condition. Of course, there are plenty of other properties the
squatters could rent at reasonable cost without having
to accept excessive junk mail and spying for free, but whether the squatters
are too enfeebled or distrcated by the myth of the benevolent landlord remains to be
seen. I choose to be an optimist
and think that the squatters will wake up in time to avoid disaster. </div>
<div>
<br />
In short: Facebook is a Social Network, not a Business. </div>
Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-7353074611544349142012-10-22T11:57:00.001-07:002012-10-22T11:57:10.892-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Occupational Hazards </span><br />
<br />
Rory Stewart is a peculiar mixture of earnest boy scout and ruthless political operator. Born in Hong Kong and raised in Malaysia and Indonesia, he speaks fluent Farsi and in 2001 he trecked on foot across India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, relying entirely on the kindness and hospitality of the strangers who invited him to sleep in their homes and dine with their families. <i>Occupational Hazards </i>tells the story of his time as a Deputy Governor in the Coalition Political Office in post-Saddam Iraq.
<br />
<br />
Stewart writes clearly and concisely in crisp, clipped prose. He says what he means - no more, no less. But what else would one expect from a former diplomat. Even his account of a sustained bombardment under rocket fire is matter of fact, which does make one wonder whether he can truly be as unflappalbe as he seems.
<br />
<br />
There are several indidences during which Stewart makes it clear he is not above bending a few rules in order to advance an agenda, when he feels the ends justify the means. But because 'the ends' usually involve securing additional funding for schools building programmes in his impoverished province in the south of Iraq, our hero's manipulations seem justified. Not that Stewart is a propagandist; he does not shy away from contrasting his difficult day job with the degrading treatment of prisoners by unthinking junior army men in American military bases and specifically Guantanamo Bay.
<br />
<br />
What is given most emphasis are his day-to-day dealings with the tribal sheikhs, Sadr Islamists and Iranian-backed political parties in Maysan, located on the Iraq-Iranian border. Stewart goes to great lengths to describe the differences and draw the distinctions between these competing power groups, each group seemingly led by men who greet Stewart with exaggerated politeness in his office, but are equally as content to attack Coalition forces and indulge in gangsterish behaviour toward their fellow Arabs.
<br />
<br />
The situation sounds impossible (at least to my ears), but the brutal realities of occupation necessitate conversation and sometimes compromise with people it is difficult for a Western observer to understand. Stewart recounts these dealings without condemning or condoning, but as a fact of life for him during his 12 months as a provincial Deputy Governor. Meanwhile, developmental economists and human rights lawyers issue edicts about free markets and female empowerment. The situation Stewart describes in the tribal regions bears scant resemblance to the 'remedies' communicated by his superiors in the civilian and diplomatic corp.
<br />
<br />
The aims of the Coalition and those of the tribal leaders are ultimately irreconcilable. The Western forces who eat Big Macs and party until three in the morning inside the Green Zone are the epitome of the so-called 'Western decadence' that the Mullahs and Islamist preachers use to propergandise impressionable young Muslims. The few secular voices Stewart encounters and seems to see as the Coalition's best hope for a free and democratic Iraq, governed by the rule of law, are cynical and uninterested, scorning politics as an activity for 'bad men'.
<br />
<br />
The malign motives attributed to the Coalition - America and Britain in particular - are given short shrift. Instead, Stewart argues that the politicians and (to a lesser extent) even the generals, removed from events on the ground and with too little concern for deep-seated traditions, were in fact too fast to cede power to the Iraqi people. This is a complicated issue and Stewart offers no easy answers - a book like this can only really scratch the surface - but anyone wishing to find out more about what the intervention in Iraq looked like to a Western diplomatic insider is unlikely to find a clearer description than the one that is given in this book.
Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-60992664120505282722012-10-03T02:04:00.000-07:002012-10-03T02:04:07.098-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Ask and you Shall Receive</span><br />
<br />
I asked a question. I suppose you deserve an answer.<br />
<br />
They are <i>all</i> 'British' films. That is, according to the BFI and the government.<br /><br />All
10 passed the BFI Cultural Test in 2011 and were approved by the Minister for
Culture, Media and Sport on the basis of "recommendations" made by the
BFI Certification Unit (UK Film Council Certification Unit until April
2011). <br /><br />....<br /><br />Dear (former Minister for Culture, Media and Sport) Mr Hunt,<br /><br />Please could you explain the basis upon which you decided that (for the sake of brevity) Captain America is a British film?<br /><br />I mean, let's just run through a few facts:<br /><br />Captain
America has an American subject matter, an American lead actor, has mostly American and continental European locations, and an American director
(with Americans at the head of all the key departments). Yet, it was
decided that Captain <i>America</i> is a<i> British</i> film...? Sorry,
let me try that again, Captain AMERICA is a BRITISH film... Nope, still
not getting it... Captain AMERICA!!!!!! is a British film...<br /><br />What am I missing?<br /><br />American
studio money (Disney via Marvel); American subject matter (the
character was created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby in 1941); an American
lead actor (Chris Evans... not that one!); a mix of Americans, Brits and
Aussies in supporting roles (Concession 1: the leading lady is a Brit
and she plays a British character); mainly American and continental
European locations (it's a WW2 movie!) with a brief stop-over in jolly
ol' England (Concession 2: I have not checked but can guess that the vast
majority, if not all of the studio work was shot at either Shepperton
or Pinewood); and an American director, an American producer, a pair of
American writers, a pair of American editors, an American composer and an American
cinematographer... have I missed anyone? (Concession 3: At least some,
although, I think, not all, of the VFX work was done by London-based Double Negative.)<br />
<br />
You know what? When you put like that, it is tempting to consider think that Captain America might just possibly be you know (whisper it) <i>American</i>. <br /><br />Are a British love interest, UK-based
studio shooting and the participation of a Brit-based special effects
house really enough to warrant the all-encompassing British
film tag? Of course, if Captain American were an American film (it is
currently classed as a 'co-production') it would knock a US$370 million
hole in the global box office receipts earned by the so-called British
film industry...<br />
<br />
More to follow.Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-27337135417898503462012-09-19T05:08:00.000-07:002012-09-19T05:08:23.406-07:00<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Would you like to play a game? </span></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Right, how many of the following are
British films?</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>127 Hours</b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Oscar winning filmmaker Danny
Boyle's follow-up to Slumdog Millionaire. Based on the true life story of go-getting
American Aron Ralston, trapped for five days by a random rock-fall while climbing alone in Blue John Canyon, Utah. He eventually gathered the incredible
courage to cut off his own arm to free himself and escape with his life. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The King's Speech</b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Stuttering King George VI visits
an abrasive Aussie speech therapist and learns to cope with his speech
impediment (more or less), just in time to announce the start of World War II on
the wireless. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Sherlock Holmes: A Game of
Shadows</b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Robert Downey Jnr plays the
world's only 'consulting detective' as a Fin de Siecle fop with a lot of bad
habits. Guy Ritchie's direction is stylish if bombastic and the film plays out
exactly as one would expect of a film written by modern Hollywood screenwriters
(which, of course, it was). </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Captain America: The First
Avenger </b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Steve Rogers is a plucky wimp who
wants to fight for his country in World War II, but all of the army doctors say he is too small. That ends when he is
approached by a mysterious German Jewish scientist who can see his true courage and
offers him the chance to participate in a secret US government programme that
will turn him into the world's first superhero, Captain America!</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows Part II</b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The world is in mortal danger.
Boy wizard Harry Potter is in hiding. Meanwhile, the Dark Lord Voldermort marches
toward a final victory that will spell the end of the world as we know it... Will the
forces of good prevail? … Okay, I admit it. No, I haven't
seen it. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Senna</b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Asif Kapadia's documentary about the life, loves and losses of Formula One racing driver Ayrton Senna,
possibly the most charismatic man to ever wear a crash helmet. The film charts
his rise from carting – coming to the UK as a fresh-faced 18-year-old in order
to pursue his life-long dream – his confrontations with one-time team mate Alan
Prost, and his tragic death at the San Marino Grand Prix in 1994. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The Three Musketeers</b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
A largely British cast lead Paul
W.S. Anderson's steam punk-inspired adaptation of The Three Musketeers in a film that owes much more to the high-camp of Richard Lester's adaptation from the 1970s than to the classic French novel written Alexander Dumas novel in the
mid-19<sup>th</sup> century. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy</b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Tomas Alfredson's dispassionate
take on the subtle betrayals and quite paranoias of John Le Carre's take on
British spycraft during the cold war. The film's ochre colour pallet depicts a
murky world drained of vibrancy, which despite a stellar British cast – Gary Oldman,
Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch – is all too accurate
a description of the film itself.</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Jane Eyre</b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
A handsome adaptation of
Charlotte Bronte's first published novel, directed by American filmmaker Cary
Fukunaga. Like Tinker, Tailor it has a stellar British cast – Michael
Fassbender, Jaime Bell, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins – with Jane herself played by
American actress Mia Wasikowska. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>X-Men: First Class</b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
20<sup>th</sup> Century Fox's
latest reboot of the X-Men franchise depicts the well-known comic book characters
coming together for yet another globe-trotting adventure, this time centred around
the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Written and directed by the British duo of Matthew Vaughan and Jane Goldman, who previously brought us Kick-Ass and
Stardust. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Paul </b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Simon Pegg and Nick Frost lend
their comedic talents to an American studio film, writing and starring in a film about a pair of ComicCon geeks who encounter a dope-smoking
extraterrestrial called Paul during a road trip between
famous UFO hotspots. Inept FBI agents, cliched southern hicks (with guns) and
Sigorny Weaver all feature. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So, what's the verdict? Three? Four? <i>Five</i>? Submit your answers in the comment box below. I will post another update soon. </div>
Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-69063644687545774922012-09-01T03:47:00.001-07:002012-09-01T03:49:29.074-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">We Can Remake It For You, Wholesale </span><br />
<br />
The plots for almost all your favourite novels can be summed up in just one short sentence. Catch-22: war is madness. The Great Gatsby: 'success' is failure. Moby Dick: 'a nut chasing a big fish', to borrow from Harlan Ellison. But, like John Conway's Game of Life, that apparent simplicity belies a vast complexity.
<br />
<br />
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously described Hollywood as a "dump", so maybe I am expecting too much.
<br />
<br />
Total Recall (2012) is a passable piece of onscreen entertainment, it has some showy special effects and there are a few fleeting moments of interest, but it could/should be so much more.
<br />
<br />
Douglas Quaid is a disillusioned factory worker with a beautiful, loving wife. He lives in a ramshackle apartment in The Colony (present day Australia) and travels everyday on a turbo-lift, euphemistically known as The Fall, which passes through the centre of the Earth, connecting The Colony to The United Federation of Great Britain. We are told that as a result if some kind of natural disaster the rest of the Earth is now uninhabitable and that nothing can survive in what is known as The Exclusion Zone.
<br />
<br />
Let's pause there.
<br />
<br />
I love a good science fiction setup and would be willing to go along with this one if the detailing were better. What we are presented with is a starting point. When, how and why was The Fall created? Was it post-disaster or pre-disaster? What caused the disaster? How long has the Earth been this way? Why is the Exclusion Zone uninhabitable? Is anybody attempting to clean it up? In what universe would the Aussies willingly submit to colonial domination by the British? None of these questions are addressed, let alone answered. All you know is that The Colony looks like Blade Runner and is where the workers live, while The United Federation of Great Britain looks like Canary Wharf and is home to the bourgeoise.
<br />
<br />
Resume.
<br />
<br />
The television tells us that both The United Federation of Great Britain and The Colony are under the control of a near-dictatorial politician called Cohaagen, who has accrued to himself emergency powers (and an army of law enforcement robots) to cope with the escalating 'terrorist threat' posed by a charismatic underground resistance leader called Quato.
<br />
<br />
Pause.
<br />
<br />
This is powerful stuff, if the filmmakers cared to explore it. Unfortunately, they do not.
<br />
<br />
Resume.
<br />
<br />
Rekaal is a shady business that creates false memories by injecting special chemicals into the bloodstream. The advertisements promise that once the procedure is complete, the brain is unable to distinguish the imagined memory from any of your real memories. Turned over for promotion, Quaid goes out drinking and despite having been warned against it by almost everyone in his inner circle decides to visit Rekaal.<br />
<br />
John Cho attempts to inveigle Quaid in the metaphysics of implanted memory.<br />
<br />
Pause <br />
<br />
But one cannot help but recall (pun intended) the far more dangerous character of Lenny Nero from Kathryn Bigelow's too little seen Strange Days, starring Ralph Feinnes as a black marketeer who sells other peoples' lived experiences, taken direct from the cerebral cortex.
<br />
<br />
"I'm your priest. I'm your shrink. I'm your main connection to the switchboard of the soul... I'm the magic man," he says.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5yaXPx6xWEQ" width="420"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
Resume.
<br />
<br />
And then the fun begins. Or should that be then the chase begins? Because like too many other Blockbusters, the rest of the film is one long chase - a chase across Chinatown rooftops, a car chase taken straight out of Minority Report, and a final confrontation on the vessel that carries passengers on The Fall, as it makes it's way through the centre of the Earth (what do you mean you knew that would be coming back?) The the fate of the entire World (what is left of it) is at stake - but nobody cares.
<br />
<br />
Pause.
<br />
<br />
This the main problem with the film: the filmmakers are telling the wrong story. Their film is about an underground resistance leader who saves the world, whereas what the film should have been about is a man who does not know who he is. The viewer already thinks they know what is going on so why do the filmmakers not have a bit more fun with it? Play around? Mix it up? Throw a couple of curve balls? Crucially, at no point is there a sense that reality itself is up for grabs.
<br />
<br />
Resume.
<br />
<br />
Having just killed a dozen gunman, drawing upon the kinds of skills he did not even know he had, Quaid's palm lights up and starts to ring like a mobile phone. In a reflect action (remembered from another life maybe?), he answers the call by putting his hand to his ear. It is someone claiming to be a friend from his former life. Quaid does not recognise him. The stranger tells Quaid about a safety deposit box where he can find more clues as to his identity (a trap?) and tells him that he should get rid of the device inside his hand because the authorities can use it to track him (slice open my hand? Are you kidding me?) Quaid cuts his hand open as if he were removing a sticking plaster and pulls out some bloody circuitry and a keypad. This is one of the best scenes in the film. But it also encapulates everything that is wrong with the film as well. Allow me to elaborate.
<br />
<br />
When his hand starts ringing, Colin Farrell looks slightly surprised, but I could not tell if it was a 'Who would be calling me at this hour?' kind of surprise or an 'Oh my God, there is a phone inside my hand!' kind of surprise. Are 'hand phones' just something people have in this future society? All the rage? A fashion accessory? Are they uncommon? Or even unheard of - except in elite spy circles? Furthermore, the decision to cut the phone out of his hand is taken far too lightly and it was nowhere near painful enough (a few little yelps is not enough, I don't care how tough you are) and why did he do it in broad daylight in front of a bunch of tramps who the baddies then bully when they find them playing with the exorcised erstwhile tracking device? Why not do yourself the favour of taking your own ideas seriously?
<br />
<br />
When David Cronenberg was developing what eventually become Paul Verhoven's Total Recall in 1990, he delivered what he hoped would be the final draft of the script to the the studio only to have the producer rebut him by saying, "You've written the Philip K. Dick version of the film".
<br />
<br />
"Isn't that what what we want?" said Cronenberg.
<br />
<br />
"No," said the producer. "We want to make Raiders of the Lost Ark on Mars."
<br />
<br />
Cronenberg walked, although I am sure many of his ideas (albeit in a diluted form) helped to make the Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle released in 1990 far more interesting that it might have otherwise been.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the Colin Farrell remake does not even feature Mars.
<br />
<br />
With all those dollars, all those stars, all that CGI, I think audiences are right to expect more.Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-25773576111726295862012-08-21T13:16:00.003-07:002012-08-21T13:16:41.172-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Modern Blockbuster </span><br />
<br />
Just because a movie is big, does not mean it needs to be dumb. The point is made very well in Tom Shone's exhilarating book, Blockbuster: How Hollywood Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Summer. <br /><br />The concept of the Blockbuster is tricky to pin down. It generally revolves around an axis of cost a lot of money/made a lot of money and Jaws is generally considered to be a 'turning point' of some kind. It seems to me that there are (at least) two different types of Blockbuster, largely drawn from two different eras - Classical and Modern. <br /><br />Stated simply, a Classical Blockbuster is any film that makes a lot of money at the box offices. Modern Blockbusters are films that belong to the Blockbuster genre, typically cost a lot of money to make and are marketed to within an inch of their lives. <br /><br />To that extent, ET, which, for a time, was the highest grossing movie of all time, is a Classical Blockbuster only. It did Blockbuster box office, but was produced for very little cost. Likewise, Raiders of the Lost Arc, which, although it was certainly made for a mass audience, cost (comparatively) little money, when measured against the most extravagant films of its era. Back to the Future was another big earner, but not a particularly big spender.<br /><br />What we now think of when people say, ‘Blockbuster’ was not really invented until the 1990s and it did not evolve fully into the Modern Blockbuster until the 2000s. Of course there were Classical Blockbusters, which had made a lot of money - The French Connection, The Godfather, The Exorcist. But there was no Blockbuster genre, which is what really distinguishes the Modern Blockbuster from its earlier cousin.<br /><br />Jaws - regarded by many as a kind of watershed - changed some things. It pioneered the summer release date, opening wide and saturation marketing across multiple media. But even Jaws was not a Modern Blockbuster. Post-Jaws, films started to be marketed as Blockbusters but it was not until the 1990s that the Modern Blockbuster genre was formalised. <br /><br />In the broadest possible terms, the Blockbuster genre is a grouping of films set mostly in a fantastic or science fictional world (creating the need for state-of-the-art visual effects), featuring a romantic hero (usually male), who struggles against great odds, but ultimately triumphs to fulfil his destiny. The Modern Blockbuster encompasses a far narrower spectrum of thought, feeling and emotion than the old-fashioned Classical Blockbuster, as defined by box office success.<br /><br />In that sense, the Modern Blockbuster is an avowedly self-conscious construct.<br /><br />The enormous costs involved in producing a Modern Blockbuster has also contributed to the diminution of what is considered permissible under banner of Blockbuster. Given the astronomical financial figures this now involves, the Big Six studios are practically betting the farm every time they make one these behemoths; the film has to make its money back, lest it bankrupt the entire studio. <br /><br />As a result, only the most anodyne ideas make it to the screen, with a few notable exceptions - take a bow Chris Nolan. If you can tie your investment to an established property - a sequel, a remake, a comic book character, a well known toy range or (God help us) a board game(!) - all the better. <br /><br />This is what has changed. <br /><br />The big studios were always setting out to make money (obviously). But it was not a financial necessity for that quirky film about a lonely boy who, struggling to come to terms with his parents' painful divorce, befriends a kindly alien, to make US$800 million. Although it must have been a nice surprise for everyone when it did!<br /><br />With a property like TDKR, the expectation of a billion-dollar box office is almost built into from the beginning of the project. Not to say it is not a good film, but it is a very different kind of film to what we used to called Blockbuster. It is a Modern Blockbuster.Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-9582496414677975242012-07-27T03:17:00.001-07:002012-07-27T03:17:05.901-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Daring to Dream</span><br />
<br />
The summer movie season, as we all know, is dominated by Blockbusters. This year that means a Spider-Man reboot, another Batman sequel, another Bourne sequel (minus Matt Damon) and a Total Recall remake with Colin Farrell replacing Arnie. This is to be expected I suppose, although, I do not always feel so sanguine about the parlous state of modern mainstream movie making. The problem with all of these films is that they do not exactly inspire anticipation or strong feelings of any kind, for that matter. Right or wrong, good or bad, most people have already made up their mind about what those films are going to be like.<br />
<br />
But what about those entertainments that are not as easy to second guess?<br />
<br />
<br />
The winter schedule, however, is shaping up rather differently. Typically dominated by awards worthies, this year, the Hollywood studios have backloaded many of their most colourful projects by their most visionary directors. <br />
<br />
I don't expect all of these films to be good (in fact, I would wager that at least one of them will be an absolutely Turkey). Whenever you take a chance, you risk failure and even ridicule - ask Andrew Stanton. But risk is synonymous with creativity and it is really creative films that excite me most because, when the investment in time, money and effort pays off, the result is invaribly spectacular. <br />
<br />
Here are 11 reasons why the Winter is better than the Summer: <br />
<br />
<b>Lawless</b><br />
<br />
The latest outing from Australian director John
Hillcoat. Following hot on the heels of The Assassination of Jesse James
by the Coward Robert Ford and his feature film adaptation of Cormac
McCarthy's The Road comes this story about criminal gangs and law
enforcement officials in Prohibition era America. <br />
<br />
<b>Looper</b><br />
<br />
An outlandish but
beguilingly simple premise - a young time travelling bounty hunter is
hired to assasinate his older self. Story and characters are at the centre of every good film,
regardless of genre and provided Rian Johnson gets those aspects right (as
he has done in his previous two films, Brick and The Brothers Bloom) I think we can
expect good things. Also, when Bruce Willis is good he is very good and
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is about to become a big star.
<br />
<br />
<b>The Master</b><br />
<br />
Do you like bleak existentialist dramas
with great acting and exquisite Kubrickian direction? Well, step right up because boy do we have a show for you ladies and gentleman.<br />
<br />
Rumoured
to be P.T. Anderson's take on Scientology, Philip Seymour Hoffman is a
proto L. Ron Hubbard offering pearls of wisdom to a troubled naval
veteran played by Joaquin Pheonix.<br />
<br />
Is everything what it seems? I doubt it very much.<br />
<br />
After
the towering performances and epic imagery of There Will Be Blood a few
years ago, count me intrigued, even if I am more than a little apprehensive as well.
The trailer is creepy as hell and I don't trust any of these people,
although, I suspect that is probably the point. <br />
<br />
<b>Cloud Atlas</b><br />
<br />
This has unmitigated disaster written all over it. No. Wait. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It could equally be something very special indeed.<br />
<br />
The first film since Speed Racer from the Wachowskis. And Tom Tykwer (most well known for helming Run Lola Run) to boot. <br />
<br />
Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Ben Whishaw, Hugo Weaving, Hugh Grant.<br />
<br />
The
biggest budget 'independent' film of all time. Most of the estimated
US$130 million production cost came from German financiers, although the film has now been picked up for domestic (that is US) cinematic distribution by Warner Brothers.<br />
<br />
An 'unfilmable' novel set over the course of 1,000 years, with the same actors playing multiple roles across five distinct time periods, Blackadder style.<br />
<br />
If anyone can pull this off, it is probably the trio mentioned above. <br />
<br />
Not many people liked Speed Racer. The Matrix sequels disappointed many. Was the original Matrix movie just a fluke? We're about to find out. <br />
<br />
<b>Skyfall</b><br />
<br />
I was not looking forward to this very much until I saw the trailer.<br />
<br />
<br />
It
looks a little bit serious, but the promise of Ben Whishaw as Q and the presence
of a Brit director in the form of Sam Mendes gives me hope that the
finished film will find sufficient fun (what Bond is really meant to be) to
conterpoint the brooding menace Daniel Craig plays so well.<b><br /></b><br />
<br />
<b>Lincoln </b><br />
<br />
Daniel Day-Lewis returns to our
screens this year as the non-more iconic 16th President of the United
States of America Abraham Lincoln in a film directed by non-more iconic
beardy filmmaker Steven Spielberg.<br />
<br />
There has been nary a
peep about what the film is actually about - what parts of the Lincoln
legend will be covered and in what fashion - but with a cast list that
reads like a Who's Who of great character actors from the last 20 years,
I am expecting nothing less than an historical epic in the
tradition of Lawrence of Arabia.<br />
<br />
Not asking too much is it?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Life of Pi</b><br />
<br />
What an intriguing challenge Ang Lee has set for himself. How do you make an exciting and
engaging adventure film set almost entirely on a boat that is lost at
sea and occupied exclusively by a peasant boy and a Bengal tiger. If,
through some strange alchemy, Lee can convince me that the premise is anything less than ludicrous, he will be richly
deserving of the Oscar is likely to receive for his efforts. <br />
<br />
<b>The Hobbit</b><br />
<br />
Peter Jackson returns to Middle Earth twice
more (or, if the rumours are to be believed, thrice more), this time
will Martin Freeman in tow. Will The Hobbit be hampered by its association with the The Lord of the Rings epics and the desire to 'tie-in' with the original trilogy of films, or will it be allowed to stand or fall on its own merits and remain true to the more personal and adventurous (as opposed
to portentous) spirit of Tolkien's earlier, sprightlier novel. <br />
<br />
<b>Jack Reacher</b><br />
<br />
This is the only film on this list where the primary attraction is the star, as opposed to the director or the premise. Originally named after the first novel in the Jack Reacher series, One Shot, many fans of the book already feel alientated by the casting of Cruise as their treasured 6'5'' blonde bruiser. I have not read the books myself, but can understand perfectly well how Cruise's laser-like intensity could make up for his lack of height. <br />
<br />
<b>Django Unchained</b><br />
<br />
Back in the early 1990s, when so-called independent
films were in danger of disappearing into Sundance-inspired self-indulgence, an ex-video store clerk made a movie about a bunch of
small time hoods and a bank robbery gone wrong that reminded everyone what
cinematic storytelling looks like when someone with a passion for the medium and a desire to express themselves gets a fresh script to the screen. Pulp Fiction won the Oscar but Reservoir Dogs was a landmark
'declaration of principles'.<br />
<br />
Tarantino has not always
delivered on that promise. Kill Bill works well in parts but was ultimately too baggy. Likewise, Inglorious Basterds has sequences that are
among the best Tarantino has ever written, whereas some others probably should
have probably been cut.<br />
<br />
In spite of that, Tarantino remains one of the most readily identifiable and important voices in modern cinematic discourse.<br />
<br />
Django
Unchained is what Tarantino has himself described as a Southern. Set in
the mythical American West at the turn of the 20th century, it tells
the story of a black former-slave played by Jaime Fox, who is aided in
his quest for vengeance by a German bounty hunter played by Christophe
Waltz. The villain of the piece is Leonardo DiCaprio (whom Tarantino
originally wanted to cast as Col. Hans Lander in Inglorious Basterds -
the mind boggles) as an amoral slave owner called Calvin Candie. <br />
<br />
The one big concern I had was the casting of Jaime Fox. At one point, there was talk of Will Smith Britain's very own Idris Elba taking
on the mantle of Django. In the trailer, however, Fox is as smooth and
charming as one has come to expect and not nearly as out-of-period-place as
one might have feared.<br />
<br />
An intriguing plot, witty dialogue and DiCaprio playing a villain for the first time.<br />
<br />
Count me in. <br />
<br />
<b>The Great Gatsby</b><br />
<br />
Another
visionary director is planning to make a splash in December. Adapted
from One of The Best Novels Ever Written, staring Leonardo DiCaprio
(again!) as Gatsby, Baz Lurhmann is one director who will not cowed by audience expectation. For good or ill, Lurhmann goes his own way, whether you like it or not, and he knows what he is doing and why.<br />
<br />
When
it works - Romeo + Juliet - it is spectacular, but even when it doesn't -
Australia - it is never less than interesting. <br />
<br />
<br />
Mr Lurhmann is not
to everybody's tastes. He paints on large canvasses in unashamedly broad<br />
brushstrokes - not to say he cannot be subtle, he is a director in complete control of his craft. The fact that small-minded people who seek to dampen and dillute
his vision because it does not accord with their personnel opinion of
what is in 'good taste' is a sure sign that he is doing something right.
That we should have such bold and daring artists working in a
mainstream medium is a wonderful thing. The last thing anyone could fault is his ambition.<br />
<br />
Go for it Baz!Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-17014299806575582482012-07-19T10:12:00.001-07:002012-07-19T10:13:56.984-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">How do you solve a problem like The Dark Knight?</span><br />
<br />
"They may be drinkers Robin, but they are also human beings, and may be... salvaged."<br />
<br />
Adam
West's Batman was a wonderfully pompous stuffed shirt. Christian Bale's
Batman is somewhere between long-term trauma victim and violent
vigilante. How times change, eh? <br />
<br />
I have so far managed to avoid all spoilers about the soon to be released The Dark Knight
Rises. For their part, Warner Brothers and Christopher Nolan have been playing their cards very close to their chests. <br />
<br />
I have enjoyed both of the recent Batman movies up to a point, but,
over the past few days, I have managed to convince myself out of looking
forward to TDKR. I can already see the levees beginning buckle under the
pressure, but, come Friday, the sluice gates will be opened and the cascading hype and critical adulation of a million newspaper articles, Twitter comments and Facebook posts will wash away any and all negative
comment.<br />
<br />
I would be very surprised if TDKR is not the biggest box office hit of
the year. Even some of the least credulous people I know, invoke its name
with a querulous tone. But I have not the heart to tell them what I
really think. <br />
<br />
Dare one hope that the film might live up to the hype? Are not my
reservations those of a truculent fanboy who has had his fingers burned
one too many times?<br />
<br />
There is a grain of truth in that, but it is not my main point. <br />
<br />
Do
you remember when mainstream movies were fun? Actually fun. Not part of
a mass marketed, fast food affiliated promotion machine, but actually capable of invoking a sense of genuine childlike wonder, of proffering an invitation to willingly suspend one's disbelief. <br />
<br />
Maybe I am looking back through rose tinted specks, but before Hollywood
hit upon its present formula of superheros and sequels, there was a space for proper storytelling. Films like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, Who Framed
Roger Rabbit, Goonies and ET, among many, many others, promised young people a world of mystery, adventure and humour. That tradition of what have become films for a 'family audience' is continued today by the likes of Pixar, and, in a clumsy and illiterate manner by the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.<br />
<br />
Then there was a quite separate realm of moviemaking reserved for adults, not in the sense of sex (although that might be part of the appeal), but in the sense of a story that addressed adult issues and offered the more discerning viewer something to sink their teeth into, even as they sat back and watched a crackerjack story unfold. Examples of the later might be All the All the President's Men, Three Days of the Condor, The Parallax View, Marathon Man, The French Connection, The Godfather...These were certainly not made for children, but they were not stilted
agitprop or European art cinema either, they were part of the mainstream
American tradition of spinning a good yarn. <br />
<br />
<br />
In the 1990s, a strange thing happened. Films that were once intended for a limited audience of grown-ups started to merge with the family friendly blockbuster format to create the bloated behemoths that now clutter up our multiplexes, of which TDKR is just the latest example.<br />
<br />
<br />
Arnold Schwarzenegger came to fame in the 1980s, starring in series of violent action that made more money on home video than they ever did at any cinema - Conan the Barbarian, The Terminator, Commando, Predator and Total Recall. This was new. Schwarzenegger was the poster boy for a certain type of hyperbolic action movie that had not excisted before the advent of VHS and the fact that he pulled it off with so much more style than any of the other wannabees that followed in his path meant that by the beginning of the 1990s, brand Schwarzenegger was big business.<br />
<br />
At this point in his career, he returned to the character who had made him famous and the decision was to have fateful consequences. The Terminator has been a popular cult movie, talked about and passed around between the sorts of oddballs who used to watch Alex Cox present Moviedrome on BBC2. It was a B-movie, scorned by the mainstream. But from small seeds do mighty acorns grow and from so called muck and trash and garbage does Hollywood take most of its best ideas. Terminator 2: Judgement Day was the most expensive film ever made at the time of its release and would go on to break box office records around the world. However, full admission into the maintream required that Schwarzenegger round down his few remaining sharp edges.<br />
<br />
<br />
The result was a movie with more car chases, less (graphic) violence, less horror, less threat, less of a sense of menance and a creeping sentimentality that would come to replace seemingly all other forms of emotional engagement in mainstream cinema in the years that followed. Even though Terminator 2 was not a movie made for children, it was mercilessly marketed towards them - the action figures were advertised between Saturday morning kids cartoons and images from the movie featured prominently in children's comic books - and it shared the simple-minded morality of the most condescending kiddies fare. This odd muddying of the waters is directly related to the thoroughly confused state of affairs we enjoy (or otherwise) today, where all the big blockbusters seem to want to appeal to both children and adults at the same time.<br />
<br />
<br />
TDKR is obviously not supposed to be taken seriously (it's Batman!), yet The Guardian and elsewhere want to tell us what it 'says' about the current 'state of the nation' - and for the sake of appearances or some sort of cod pseudo-scientific reason, people are supposed to pretend that any of this actually matters. Of course, it is a film for children (it's Batman!), yet it will undoubtedly feature prolonged sequences of (probaby quite sadistic) violence.<br />
<br />
<br />
America no longer seems capable of making serious films or fun films, when what they once excelled at were films that did both. Hollywood didn't have the poetic yearning of Akira Kurasawa, or the 'mind forever voyaging' style sensibility of Andrei Tarkovsky, or the tragi-comedic melancholy of Frederico Fellini. Hollywood told stories, and it used to tell them rather well. It used to make films for both children and adults in a way that dared to appeal to a smaller audience; now that everything it makes costs US$100-plus, appealing to a smaller audience is no longer an option. Now it makes films that are inherently ludicrous (in itself no bad thing), but which trumpet their own seriousness and leave little room for humour, wit or an individual point of view. Inception is clearly supposed to be serious because nobody smiles. Even the trailers for TDKR are overflowing with portent.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whatever happened to movies that are meant to be fun?Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-73838646150303631582012-07-17T00:34:00.003-07:002012-07-17T03:20:50.970-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">A Global Network of Light and Glass</span><br /> <br /> Tubes: A Journey to the
Center of the Internet is a book written by Andrew Blum about the
fundamental truth (too little understood) that the internet is not a
single, amorphous mass or ‘web’ or even ‘clo<span class="text_exposed_show">ud’,
as so many corporate marketing departments have been determined to tell
us over the last few years, but a physical system of copper and
fibre-optic cables, routers, severs, network exchanges and data centres –
all with a distinct geographical progeny. <br /> <br /> The title of the
book stems from a speech delivered by American Senator Ted Stevens in
2006, who described the internet as “a series of tubes” and was greeted
by ridicule and derision for his ‘naïve’ and ‘anachronistic’
understanding of mankind’s most modern communications technology. It is
Blum’s contention that Stevens was (in essence) spot on in his choice of
metaphor. <br /> <br /> Blum delves briefly into the history of the
‘network of networks’, describing the innovative work of early packet
switching pioneers at the American Department of Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and UK National Physical Laboratory. One
of the first visits on his whirlwind tour of internet landmarks is UCLA
and the office of Leonard Kleinrock, who was part of the largely
graduate team that operated the world’s first IP network node on the
university grounds – the first message sent via the internet was
delivered down the phone line to Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in
October 1969 – as part of what was then known as the ARPANET. This
important area of recent technological history is covered in even more
detail in John Naughton’s ‘A Brief History of the Future’ and Katie
Hafner’s ‘Where Wizards Stay Up Late’. <br /> <br /> At the heart of Blum’s
analysis is the contention that the internet is not nearly as vast or
sprawling as we are generally encouraged to think – the cover of
practically every book about the internet depicts it as lines of light
or webs of tangled connections. The ‘centre’ of the internet (if it has
one) can in fact be found in a dozen or so network exchange buildings –
the places where one network plug into another network and
interconnects.<br /> <br /> Those buildings are themselves intimately linked
to the geographical and political history of the world in which we
live. 60 Hudson Street in Manhattan is one of the most important
buildings in the global internet infrastructure because it was once the
central nexus of Western Union’s telegraph communications
infrastructure. The most active submarine cable systems in the world are
those that run between London and New York – and London, Frankfurt and
Amsterdam are home to the three largest internet exchanges (IX) in the
world, all three being cities with important ties to the history of
commerce and telecommunications. <br /> <br /> The main criticism one might
level at the book is its Western-centric point of view. The comparative
importance of Far Eastern hubs such as Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul and
Singapore is scarcely addressed and the author deliberately sidesteps
(for obvious reasons) the thorny issues that surround China’s massive
and expanding internet infrastructure. This oversight is still more
striking when one considers that the top ten ‘best connected’ cities in
the world in terms of bandwidth and connection speed are all now in
Asia. <br /> <br /> There is an important chapter towards the end of the
book about the submarine cable systems that have started to land around
the coast of the Africa – EASSy, SEACOM, Main One and WACS – connecting
that vital and vibrant continent to the rest of the world. The book’s
keen focus on the places where the physical meets what Blum calls the
‘logical’ universe of the computer means that little attention is paid
to what these connections might mean for society, politics or economics.
In Africa, for instance, it is worth noting that the introduction of
new submarine cable systems has lead to explosion in mobile phone
adoption, and, in Kenya in particular, an explosion in mobile banking.
Fibre-optic cables have enabled network operators to replace the
comparatively expensive and unreliable satellite systems that were
previously relied upon – mobile phones are not nearly as ‘mobile’ as one
might imagine – thereby enabling them to provide higher bandwidth,
speedier and lower priced telecommunications services for millions of
customers. <br /> <br /> The book is breezily written and sure-eyed in its
focus on the all too often overlooked physical and geographical
realities of the internet. The book understandably steers clear of some
of the more contentious issues about the comparative openness of certain
networks, but does a sterling job of demystifying the thin fibres of
light and glass that now encircle the globe.</span>Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-3962210373476203972012-06-27T23:47:00.001-07:002012-06-28T02:25:03.325-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">What's in a name?</span><br />
<br />
<br />
Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is almost exactly what one would expect from a film of that name. It is not likely to be troubling Academy voters come Awards season, but where else are you going to see Abraham Lincoln flail an axe before plunging it into a vampire's face?<br />
<br />
The script is poor, the characterisation practically non-existent - although, there is a surprisingly long stretch in the middle of the movie during which the filmmakers attempt to inject some sort of pathos into proceedings - and the story has few, if any, real surprises. That is what it is not.<br />
<br />
What it is is a film of simple pleasures. It is about the joy of twirling an axe, being tall and wearing a long jacket. And while Timur Bekmambetov may not be the best storyteller the world has ever know, he certainly has a sense of visual style, which is more than can be said for a lot of the most high-profile filmmakers working in Hollywood today.<br />
<br />
The film owes a lot to video games in terms of both its narrative - mini-bosss, level boss and end-boss - and its design. Some of the sequences are terrifically well conceived, whereas others have a 'Walking with Dinosaurs' look and feel about them and are terribly clunky.<br />
<br />
On the John Carpenter scale of B-movie greatness - the barometer by which all others must be judged - Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is better than Ghosts of Mars, but not as good as Vampires. So, we are at the lower end of the scale, but, just to put that in context, Vampires, in which James Woods and Billy Baldwin play a couple of grizzled old blue-collar vampire hunters for whom blood, horror and violence are just another part of the day job, is a (not so) guilty pleasure of mine.<br />
<br />
What else would you expect from a film called Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter?Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-28271946244730198132012-05-08T14:25:00.000-07:002012-05-08T23:28:01.677-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Pirates of Silicon Valley
</span><br />
<br />
If Big Media insist on behaving like scammers in the name of protecting their intellectual property, they will be the ones to miss out... big time.
<br />
<br />
For the time being traditional media outlets continue to produce most of the best content that is out there. This may not last but that, my friends, is a conversation for another day. American TV in particular is enjoying a particularly good run of form with series like The Wire, Deadwood, Mad Men, Battlestar Galactica, The West Wing making it difficult for even the most committed telly addicts to keep on top of it all. This is great, of course, and long may it continue.
<br />
<br />
In the spirit of wanting to see such good works continue and in the name of supporting the artists (as well as the studios) who make such fine works possible, I recently bought a copy of Game of Thrones on Blu-Ray. Purchased from a well known British retailer (apparently one in six pounds are spent in its stores), this handsome high-definition presentation, replete with Dolby mastered 6.1 sound and numerous extras set me back some £31.99 - and very happy I was too.
<br />
<br />
As soon as I had finished watching the first two episodes, which I did back to back, I knew that I had bought a bargain, and I was glad I had waited to watch the genuine article. Sean Bean, Peter Dinklage et al's impeccable acting, George R.R Martin's intricate plotting and the glorious landscapes of Scotland, Ireland and northern England were a joy to behold. No digital download I have ever seen could have hoped to rival the clarity, depth or vibrancy of the image.
<br />
<br />
I was one happy customer, as they say. Until... (don't tell me you knew there was a twist coming) one day, out of the blue, Power DVD requested that I update the software on my computer. Within seconds the download was complete and the Blu-Ray disks for my lovely new Game of Thrones box set refused to play.
<br />
<br />
Like any computer-savvy consumer I immediately turned to the Internet for help. What was this nonsense? Forum after forum described the exact same problem. None offered solutions.
<br />
<br />
Maybe I just need to upgrade the software?
<br />
<br />
Well, yes and no. Apparently, at some point in the relatively recent past new DRM restrictions on Blu-Ray disks have caused PowerDVD to withdraw Blu-Ray disk support for older versions of the software. Disks that previously worked no longer do. My entire Blu-Ray collection is now unplayable on my computer unless I pay an additional ~£35 to the company that makes PowerDVD, which seemingly has some sort of exclusive license for the HD drivers that convert the digital information encoded on the disks into sounds and video.
<br />
<br />
I cannot help but notice that this is the exact same 'business model' adopted by malware scammers.
<br />
<br />
Personally, it makes me much more disinclined to buy any more Blu-Ray disks. How about you?Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-57032281668519108302012-05-06T09:58:00.001-07:002012-05-08T02:22:29.896-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Holding up the Mirror</span><br />
<br />
Ghost in the Shell is a highly influential Japanese cyberpunk science-fiction film from 1995. The film concerns a female cyborg assassin called Major Motoko Kusanagi, the leader of an elite counter-intelligence unit called Section 9 and its brushed chrome style influenced the look of The Matrix, which also borrowed its scrolling green alpha-numerics.<br />
<br />
<br />
Tasked with apprehending a dangerous hacker called the Puppet Master, who has been using 'ghost hacked' humans to accomplish shadowy political aims by proxy, Kusanagi starts to question the validity of her subjective experience as an artificial human. One striking sequence in an interrogation cell depicts a ghost hacked human confronted with the truth about the simulated experience the Puppet Master has programmed into his brain in order to manipulate him. "Will I get my old memories back?" he opines, desperately.<br />
<br />
Short and snappy at 80 minutes, Ghost in the Shell takes science fiction norms familiar from the writings of William Gibson and Blade Runner, and lends them a sinewy sense of Oriental otherness.Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-64978291336454149172012-05-01T11:51:00.002-07:002012-05-02T03:30:50.152-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Willing Suspension of Disbelief</span><br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NPoHPNeU9fc" width="420"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
The fullest cinema I have seen in a very long time and a much broader demographic than I anticipated turned out to watch the new Joss Whedon movie - Marvel's Avengers Assemble - on Saturday afternoon. Disney's marketing executives have been having a pretty torrid time of it of late, what with John Carter (of Mars... or not of Mars, as the case may be). Marvel's Avengers Assemble therefore is the rather clumsy title they have plumped for in the UK, to distinguish it from tongue-in-cheek British spy series of the 1960s and Hollywood box office flop of 1998, The Avengers.<br />
<br />
There are a million different ways in which approach a review about this particular film. From a business perspective it is the culmination of a four-year long franchise film cycle that started with Iron Man in 2008. From a creative perspective it is the latest in a vast array of Hollywood superhero movies produced since they decided to start giving these hyper-real juggernauts to serious filmmakers, beginning with Bryan Singer and X-Men in 2000.<br />
<br />
For this particular outing Marvel has turned to the talents of writer-director Joss Whedon, probably best known for his work on American cult TV series, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Firefly. His assured handling of witty repartee makes him an obvious choice to helm what is essentially a superhero ensemble piece and even his action sequences is surprisingly solid - shots that looked televisual in the trailers really come to life in movie.<br />
<br />
What of the film itself? <br />
<br />
At times Robert Downey Jnr threatens to unbalance the entire enterprise, so supple is his handling of the throwaway comic quip. But he is just about kept in check by Mark Ruffalo's quietly powerful work as Bruce Banner and his mean, green alter ego. There is a moment early on when Ruffalo threatens Scarlett Johannsen's Black Widow that made me immediately love his character, a darkly mischievous streak that leans heavily on the fact that he knows people are terrified of making him angry. I had never seen anyone explore that aspect of Banner's character before. Chris Evans deserves plaudits for portrayal of the earnest all American boy-cum-military athlete extraordinaire Captain America. Playing opposite Downey Jnr's wisecracking genius billionaire playboy philanthropist he certainly risks coming across as too good to be true, but Evans invests his characterisation with an honesty and a warmth that makes you root for him too. Chris Hemsworth as Thor is probably less well served than any of his compatriots in the gang, but he doesn't put a foot wrong with the material he is given to play.<br />
<br />
Of course, heroes are only as good as their villain, and in the form of Tom Hiddleston's Loki, The Avengers are onto a real winner. I was not sure that his character would prove substantive enough to propose a legitimate threat to such a mighty gang but, as played by Hiddleston, Loki is everything he should be - a snivelling but oddly charismatic man-boy who happens to have the powers of a Norse God.<br />
<br />
Yes, I know it is another Hollywood superhero movie. Yes, I know it is the centrepiece of a multi-platform multimedia movie-gaming franchise. Yes, I know it is predictable in places and cheesy in others, but Whedon writes with wit, directs with style and his cast have just the right mix of fun and fantasy threat. Check your cynicism at the door and just go with it, remember what is was like to wake up early on a Saturday morning and watch the Marvel Action Hour - pure escapism, if you've got sufficent imagination to embrace it.Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-23417425660769763492012-04-22T23:26:00.000-07:002012-04-22T23:31:34.277-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Pay the Writer</span><br />
<br />
<span class="ecxApple-style-span" style="font-family: Noteworthy; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span>Previously, I expressed my desire to defuse the idea of a 'war on copyright' because it creates an artificial polarity that does not help to further the necessary discussion and debate that needs to take place on this increasingly important issue.<br />
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
I pointed out that the only people
impacted by restrictive and intrusive DRM are legitimate users, who pay
an over-inflated price for an inferior product. </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
I suggested that these self-defeating practices that are impoverishing the creative industries <span class="ecxApple-style-span">might
be rectified by lowering the price of digital goods (the nominal
distribution cost of which is zero) and removing the DRM that more and
more closely resembles malware and spyware. </span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<b>Digital abundance</b></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
In
this second article, I would like to backtrack a little and explain
where I stand with respect to copyright, and why I think it is so
important for creators to receive suitable recompense for the products
they create, online or otherwise. </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
My
understanding of copyright is quite straightforward. I am no lawyer and I
have no special knowledge on the subject - please let me know if I have
anything wrong if you know more than I - but, as far as I understand
it, copyright is a protection against plagiarism that enables creators
to earn a living. That is it. I am sure that there are all sorts of
complicated legal precepts with which copyright is associated and I know
that there are hundreds of different licenses under which works can be
copyrighted, but, as far as I am concerned, the notion that creators be
paid for the products of their hearts and minds is perfectly fair and
reasonable. </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
Some argue that the 'digital
revolution' and resulting information abundance has made copyright
irrelevant, that the concepts of propriety and freedom are antithetical
in a digital world. This strikes me as wrong. Propriety is surely an
important part of freedom. </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<b>Why it matters</b></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
One
of the most eloquent and informed writers and speakers on the subject
of copyright and digital distribution is Corey Doctorow. He earns what
appears to be a very good living as a science fiction writer, technology
journalist and public speaker. Having worked as a computer programmer,
he knows about the technical realities of modern computing, and, having
worked for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, he is very well informed
about modern copyright law. I would not dream of contradicting him about
any of the finer details of what are called the copyright wars, but
which, I think, need a new name. As I am about to outline, I agree with
him in almost every respect, but one. Creators should be paid for
digital products. </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
If you will allow me to
paraphrase, Corey Doctorow says that the copyright wars are the front
line of a coming war on general-purpose computation. Corporations and
control freaks like the idea of turning general-purpose computers - as
embodied by the PC (probably running Linux) - into tethered media
appliances with limited functionality and spyware as standard, all in
the name of security and convenience. Computing devices that match this
description are already available on the market - you may well be
reading this article on an Apple iPad, probably the most prevalent of
this new vanguard. <span class="ecxApple-style-span">The
fundamental point is that DRM is a slippy slope towards more
authoritarian forms of control that might limit access to digital
information. The solution therefore is for people to reject DRM in all
its forms - and I agree with all of that. </span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span">However,
removing DRM and weakening copyright does not necessarily improve the
likelihood of creators to be paid for their work online. </span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<b><span class="ecxApple-style-span">The copyright industries</span></b></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span">I
have do far been very polite and attempted to choose my words very
carefully to avoid any sense of prejudice on my part. But I feel like it
is time to put my cards on the table and declare where my interests
lie.</span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
SOPA and PIPA were notionally
promoted by the MPAA to protect the interests of its members - Universal
Studios, Paramount Pictures, Sony, Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox
and The Walt Disney Company - all of which are either subsidiaries of or
in themselves transnational corporations. This was an industrial
response to what is essentially a creative problem, or to be more
specific, a problem for creators. Personally, I could scarcely care less
about whether the Big Six survive the digital transition. They have
made themselves culturally irrelevant by rigid adherence to a franchise
filmmaking formula <span class="ecxApple-style-span"> aimed
almost exclusively at young boys and their families, and they have made
themselves financially precarious by only making films with the insanely
large budgets. Personally, I think I can live without another
Transformers sequel or Spider-Man reboot. </span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
My
interest and my concern is for free-spirited and independently minded
creators. The problem of digital distribution is a problem for creators
not corporations. Several years ago - maybe 15 or 20 - cyber utopians
promised that the Internet would usher in a new era of pluralism and
creativity, eliminating boundaries to entry for new
writers/musicians/filmmakers/programmers. That was true enough, in the
sense that millions of people were given a platform to publish what they
wanted - everything from new political treatise to the ever popular cat
picture. But, the utopians failed to anticipate the profoundly
destabilising impact the Internet would have upon previously stable
professions. </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
The most readily reported (ha!)
is probably journalism. Thousands of jobs on local and national
newspapers have been lost because of the advertising dollars that were
lost to the Internet. Maybe that was necessary. Maybe those people were
not producing anything of any value and the papers in question are now
better. I do not know. But I am worried. </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
The
money that previously went towards paying journalists did not then go
towards paying the bloggers who nominally replaced them. Those jobs were
lost, not to be replaced, while the vast majority of bloggers (even the
good ones) continued to work for nothing, earning money elsewhere. <span class="ecxApple-style-span">This
deprofessionalisation of journalism is starting to occur in other
industries - music, films, games. Practically everything that the
digital magic wand touches. People in low-cost manufacturing had better
watch out because as soon 3D printers go mainstream their jobs will be
subject to the same market forces. </span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<b><span class="ecxApple-style-span">A false economy </span></b></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span">Into
this confusing cacophony of amateurs struggling to make a living,
working elsewhere and indulging their passion in their spare time, enter
Google, with an offer for creators. You can publish your text, music
and video on our platforms - Blogger and YouTube - for free, provided
that we keep the logs. In return, we will place targeted advertising
around your content, earning us dollars and you cents. And, put simply,
it sucks. Creators do all of the work so that the companies that own
the servers that host the content can make almost all of the money. I
think can do better. I think we need to try to create a business model
that puts creators in control of their own works and enables them to
earn a living.</span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span">Corey
Doctorow seems to propose that creators should give their works away
for free over the Internet in order to attract sales in other media. He
gives away free copies of his e-books and his audiobooks without DRM via
his website and seems to make a very good living from physical books
sales and his speaking engagements. He says that most author's biggest
problem is not theft but obscurity. This may well be true, but there is
only one Corey Doctorow. If I have misrepresented his position, I would
love to hear from the man himself. </span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span">He
may be right. It is not possible to control the distribution of digital
content without DRM, but I would like to think it is possible for
creators to earn a living in a digital world. Surely it should be
easier, in fact. Imagine the possibilities; instead of being
impoverished, creators could be empowered. Creative people do not need
or want to make millions, only enough to cover their costs, with a
little bit extra to support their lifestyle while they work on their
next project. Simple. I think that the best way to achieve this is
probably through some form of direct payment. In this context, paying
for what one wants to read, watch and listen is a social act, one that
enriches society as a whole, as opposed to an elite minority of
executives to whom people begrudge payment. </span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="ecxApple-style-span"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="ecxApple-style-span"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Exactly
what such a system might look like is difficult to determine, but I
feel like I am gradually grasping towards an understanding. I may need a bit of help putting the bits and pieces
together. </span></span><br />
</div>
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mj5IV23g-fE" width="420"></iframe>Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-57452884346018545482012-04-21T11:27:00.001-07:002012-04-21T11:27:31.503-07:00<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">More Good News</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cWmbqH_z7jM" width="420"></iframe></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This is how to make a
viral video. The music and Fassbender's performance are exemplary.
Anybody who has ever watched a corporate video aimed at executives
will immediately recognise the soft lighting, the high production
values and the even, but ever so slightly passive-aggressive tone.
The moment when David tells us what what makes him sad - “War,
poverty, cruelty, unnecessary violence” - then, as the tears roll
down his cheeks, explains, “I understand human emotions, although I
do not feel them myself”, is wonderfully unsettling.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
For the first time I am
excited by the prospect of watching Prometheus in the cinema. None of
the teaser tailors or theatrical trailers were particularly engaging,
and the Guy Pierce TED Talk was badly misjudged. I would have been
willing to give Guy Pearce a pass on his English accent if he hadn't
been directed to give his speech in full on evil-rich-bastard mode to
an amphitheatre of what looks like roughly 40,000 people. TED Talks
today tend to be given by very fluent, very personable professionals
in relatively small venues that hold no more than 2,000 people –
usually less.<br />
<br />
So, well done, the marketing guys got it right this time. I just hope Ridley Scott is up to the very difficult task of finding something new to say and telling an enertaining and surprising story with the Alien franchise. </div>Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-33580156987673109692012-04-21T08:22:00.001-07:002012-04-21T08:33:26.899-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">They Got My Memo</span><br />
<br />
At least some people are still trying to make interesting science fiction films based on original subject matter. <br />
<br />
<b>A spectre is haunting the world</b><br />
<br />
David
Cronenberg is a past master at this sort of thing. He has a
core audience of dedicated film fans who will watch almost everything he
makes, regardless of subject matter. But, when he turns his hand to a sleazy techno thriller about sex, money and power in the 21st century, their cup runneth. The idea of Robert
Pattinson's core audience being corrupted by Cronenberg and Don
DeLillo's subversive vision gives the entire enterprise a nicely sadistic edge as well. <br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xrwp8gxyZb4" width="420"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<b>Mirror, mirror</b><br />
<br />
Rian Johnson is probably
best known for his first feature film - a moderately successful independent
production called Brick, about an American high school where everybody talks like characters in a Raymond Chandler novel. His second feature film was the stylish but
muddled, The Brothers Bloom, about a couple of con men played by Mark
Ruffalo and Adrian Brody who set out to trick but eventually end up falling for a dotty
English heiress played by Rachael Weisz. I think I am one of about a
dozen people who saw that one in a cinema. <br />
<br />
Financial
success (or the lack thereof) notwithstanding, somebody clearly likes Johnson's style.<br />
<br />
The
premise for his latest feature film is a doozy. Joseph Gordon Levitt is scarcely
recognisable as a time-travelling assassin - or Looper - who kills people in the past in order to eliminate them from the future. He is living the high life until he is hired to
kill someone who has no place in his present: his older self. Bruce Willis
plays the older assassin and if this combines the guns and explosions present in the trailer with the quirky sensibility of Johnson's two previous two cinematic outings, we may well be in for a treat. <br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0uIWGOKW5OM" width="420">&lt;p&gt;&amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;</iframe>Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-10645277542362126272012-04-21T04:27:00.000-07:002012-04-21T04:28:22.741-07:00<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Keeping it Simple</span></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The copyright
industries claim that DRM is necessary to prevent copyright
infringement. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Yet, copyright
infringement continues.
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What solution do the
copyright industries propose? Even more restrictive DRM!
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Albert Einstein said,
the definition of madness is repeating the same action, over and
over, hoping for a different result.
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Legitimate
user experience</b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It goes without saying
that the only people who are impacted by DRM are legitimate users. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What do these
conscientious and law-abiding citizens get for their troubles?
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
No.1: A higher price </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The company that
produces the music/film/game is likely to try to covers the cost of the expensive R&D that created the DRM that
monitors and restricts legitimate use by setting a higher sale price for legitimate users. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
No.2: A worse product </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The legitimate user who pays money for a copyright protected game
with DRM may not be able to play the game without
first registering her name, address and current account details with a
remote host who is only then in a position to verify that she is indeed a legitimate user. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The legitimate user who pays money for a
copyright protected song with DRM may not be able to play the song on the MP3 player of his choice because the proprietary file format is not supported
by the device. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I have deliberately chosen examples at the milder end of the DRM
spectrum, but the annoyance and resentment these restrictions engender are nevertheless real and
genuine.
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Meanwhile, the legitimate
user's friend downloads the same game with no DRM and
for no cost via BitTorent, she does not have to provide any personally identifiable information with a third party, she does not have to connect to the internet every time she wants to play the game, she does not have to have her use of the game monitored, time-stamped and data mined, and she is nor forced to download periodic updates and patches. The resemblance between certain types of DRM and malware/spyware is striking. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
After a couple of months of being bullied and spied upon the legitimate user might think, 'Hang on a second, I am getting a raw deal here. Next time, I'll just download it off the Internet!' and the cycle of higher prices and an inferior user experience for legimate users perpetuates, driving more people to engage in copyright infingement, sending the copyright industries into a death spiral. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This malaise is wholly avoidable, if both sides of the debate are willing to counternance a few home truths. This is not to endorse copyright infringement. But, if one is
going to attempt to solve the problem, one has to at least try to
understand from where the problem stems.
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The social contract</b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There is an active debate in certain political circles at the moment about ending the 'war on drugs'. One of the few areas of agreement in that debate is that the rhetroric 'war on drugs' has not been helpful. Creators, publishers and technologists should avoid making the same mistake. Calling something a war is likely to polarise people and create entrenched positions on both sides. It is much more productive to talk about what is clearly a problem from a position of openness in order to engage in rational debate. I feel like I need to clarify these self-evident propositions because of the way in which language is so often rendered toxic by political debate. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In a spirit of
reconciliation, I would like to point out what both sides are doing wrong and how to make a change in behaviour more likely. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Enlightenment thinkers used to talk about something called the 'social contract' which says that in a civilised society people should be willing to give up certain 'freedoms' in order to live more prosperously together. In the 'state of nature' described by Thomas Hobbes as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", I am free to steal from whomever I want, whenever I want. But in a civilised society, the citizens agree to cede that freedom so that others will do the same. Individual citizens have a responsibility to behave in a way that accords due respect to the social contract that binds them with their fellows citizens.</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
As I have already outlined, the relationship that exists between individuals and the copyright industries is not equitable and it is therefore in their power to reverse the self-defeating practices that are driving still more people to engage in copyright infringement, costing them still more money. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I would propose two changes. Both are simple. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
No. 1: Remove the DRM. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
As Corey Doctorow
points out, "DRM is broken in minutes, sometimes days. Rarely
months". It is ineffective, intrusive and only impacts
legitimate users. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
No.2: Lower your prices. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
CDs and DVDs are comparatively inexpensive to produce and a digital download costs even
less. Yet, iTunes charges 80p per song and Amazon charges upwards of £8.99 for an e-book, the same as a paperback copy. </div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Avoid a pirate's charter </b></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Lowering the price and
removing the DRM would immediately make legitimate purchases of
digital goods a more attractive proposition. And what is the best way to
win customers in a competitive market place? By convincing
customers your product is better than your competitor's product. Every executive in the
copyright industries should be looking to promote their foremost
competitive advantage to its utmost. What is that advantage? Legitimacy. Don't laugh! Illegitimate users run the risk of
downloading all manner of malware and spyware, which is why it is so
stupid for the copyright industries to argue in favour of greater
surveillance to protect their products. SOPA, PIPA and ACTA are a
pirate's charter writ large! Users do not want that and the copyright
industries should not want it either.
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I don't expect the
problem to vanish over night. The swamp of resentment created by
the heavy-handed practices of media conglomerates is
not going to subside in an instant. A minority of people will never be
convinced. Over time, however, a more reasonable price and the freedom of people to use the goods they purchase as they desire would give the
copyright industries a chance to survive and thrive.
My hope is that, for the vast majority, if it is in
their rational self-interest to buy a legitimate copy, they will.
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If that does not work,
we need a new system of production, payment and distribution, and I
have got a few ideas about that as well.</div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="ecxwestern" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>This is the first post in a new series of articles about copyright. I am not pretending to have anything like all the answers, but in writing these articles I hope to tease out some of the subtleties of the arguments on both sides and in so doing move the debate forward. </i></div>Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-58238050360119494732012-04-17T11:48:00.002-07:002012-04-19T23:27:45.387-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">J'aime le film de Gainsbourg</span><br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sMLn1zt0brA" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
The lover of the pop biopic has been well served in recent years. The Americans have given us solid, sturdy narratives with exceptional performances - Jaime Fox as Ray Charles and Joaquin Phoenix as The Man in Black. The Brits have produced quirky, independently-spirited impressionist oddities about outsiders and desperadoes like the gay, half-deaf, occult obsessed 1960s record producer Joe Meek in Telstar, and Polio-striken punk word smith Ian Drury in Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll. The French, however, have been less well served, largely because, let's face it, the French were pretty short of pop stars to begin with.<br />
<br />
There are, of course, exceptions to every rule and Serge Gainsbourg was a notable exception, as is the film that carries his name that is ostensibly about his life. In contrast to recent American efforts, first-time director Joann Sfar is scarcely interested in the emotional peaks and troughs of Gainsbourg's journey through life and much interested in capturing a sense of the outlaw spirit of the man's music. Sfar said he wanted to "avoid the burden of making a museum piece" and just have fun making a movie, an approach that would have likely found favour with the film's laconic hero.<br />
<br />
The one time cartoonist achieves this in a number of ways, most notably through the creative use of puppets and long-limbed Guillermo Del Toro collaborator Doug Jones, who lends his unique physicality to a grossly exaggerated caricature of Gainsbourg's favoured public image - La Gueule - an elegant anarchistic lothario with an enormous nose, who time after time leads Gainsbourg astray. When Gainsbourg finds himself uncertain about whether to pursue a musical or an artistic career, La Gueule takes his guitar in hand, lights his head with a match and dances around his counterpart's studio, burning precious artworks and engulfing the entire room in flames. When the fire is extinguished, nothing of Gainsbourg's life of an artist remains.<br />
<br />
It is not a subtle film. Characters are invariably what they seem and all details are painted in broad, colourful brush strokes. There is hardly any consideration given to narrative - once the small Jewish boy has escaped from the shadow of what he calls his Ugly Mug - another live-action puppet - the film moves rapidly from one Euro Pop musical number to the next, Gainsbourg bedding beautiful woman, one after another - Greco, Bardot, Birkin - and La Gueule inviting him to elope lest he settling down. Eric Elmosnino is exemplary in the leading role, surly, sarcastic, a cigarette hanging out of his mouth at all times.<br />
<br />
Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life is the film's full title, intended as an ironic in-joke I presume. The film plays out a male fantasy about being the bad boy that at times resembles so closely a parody of a French hero, I can only assume the director is having a bit of fun by calling the film that. Gainsbourg, as depicted in the film was the kind of selfish bastard best avoided in real-life, but its good fun to indulge in two hours of his company via the medium of film. Far from perfect, but the lie is a good one. 'When the legend becomes fact, print the legend'.<br />
<br />
Bravo! C'est tres bon!Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-8673591417069465142012-04-16T14:52:00.002-07:002012-04-26T23:40:17.351-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Early 21st Century Disaster Fiction</span><br />
<br />
The 'situation on the ground' in the first decade of the 21st century was far stranger than even the most visionary 20th century science fiction writers ever imagined. As described by William Gibson in The Paris Review: "Fossil fuels have been discovered to be destabilising the planet’s climate, with possibly drastic consequences. There’s an epidemic, highly contagious, lethal sexual disease that destroys the human immune system, raging virtually uncontrolled throughout much of Africa. New York has been attacked by Islamist fundamentalists, who have destroyed the two tallest buildings in the city, and the United States in response has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq."<br />
<br />
Climate change and the looming environmental disaster that scientists like James Lovelock warned about with such urgency did not really start making headlines, however, until the middle of the last decade. Hence, Hollywood - a cultural barometer for so many American societal issues - was, arguably, slightly ahead of the curve in its depiction of impending climate catastrophe. With a global box office take of more than US$500, The Day After Tomorrow was the most financially successful environmental disaster fiction of all time. Though certainly not a pioneering disaster movie - Hollywood has been entertaining America with stories about the end of the world since Cecil B. DeMille started making biblical epics in the early 1920s - The Day After Tomorrow was significant in the sense that it was possibly the first film to introduce the concept of imminent climate catastrophe to a mass audience. Al Gore's portentous PowerPoint presentation, An Inconvenient Truth, won the Oscar for Best Documentary in 2006, thereby demonstrating the desire of the Hollywood elite to be associated with fashionable causes. But, with only US$50 million at the global box office, it was The Day After Tomorrow that had a bigger impact on the general public. The political siren being sounded by the likes of Al Gore ahead of global climate talks by the G20 in Montreal in 2005 made the reckless destruction of New York by rampaging snow and ice seem reasonable - and cinema-goers bought into that fiction in their millions. The Day After Tomorrow will be remembered by me for an hilarious sequence in which Donnie Darko runs away from a fast-moving frost, only to escape a fate worse that frost-bite by locking the door! The message seemed to be: get better insulation.<br />
<br />
Following Al Gore's reasonably successful polemic, earnest documentaries like the Leonardo DiCaprio backed, The Eleventh Hour, and the tactfully named, The Age of Stupid, preached to the converted (and alienated mainstream America) about the dangers of man-made carbon emissions and suddenly the end of the world didn't sound like nearly as much fun as it had done; apparently, remembering to turn the lights off and half filling the kettle wasn't going to be enough. Faced by insurmountable odds and lacking the power to directly affect the policies that govern power stations and the use of fossil fuels, political pressure waned, as did audience numbers and Hollywood interest in the subject. By 2008, the global political elite had bigger fish to fry in the form of a banking crisis, and, lacking direction and leadership, the environmental lobby seemed to flounder, struggling to find a cohesive, consistent narrative. That struggle for identity is exemplified by M. Night Shyamalan's well meaning, but confused and confusing 2008 film, The Happening, which wanted to say that 'nature will find a way to rid itself of irresponsible caretakers', but was so badly plotted it would have taken a Bertrand Russel to discern that message.<br />
<br />
By the end of the decade, Hollywood, like the general public it seems, had moved on from climate change. This left the field open for more thoughtful and politically minded independent filmmakers, such as Australia's John Hillcoat, whose 2009 adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel, The Road, is about as bleak a film as one could ever wish to see. About a boy and his father, struggling to survive in an Apocalyptic landscape, following a catastrophe - presumed to be environmental, although never specifically stated - there is no hope, there is no redemption. That story of desperation and despair did reasonable business in Europe but, perhaps unsurprisingly, failed to find much of an audience in the United States. It is a film that would never have been made in Hollywood today. But would a mainstream audience be willing to listen to its brutal message?Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-18344307203366730672012-04-15T14:20:00.004-07:002012-04-15T23:20:02.917-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width</span><br />
<br />
Headhunters is the kind of slick, empty nonsense that would be ridiculed for its two-dimensional characters, unbelievable plotting and seemingly bottomless sadism were it not for the fact that it is set in Oslo, as opposed to LA, and the actors speak in Norwegian, not English.<br />
<br />
Not to say that the film is without charm or pleasure, but, why is it that whenever English critics review a film with subtitles, almost all sense of proportion goes out the window and everything is suddenly imbued with meaning?<br />
<br />
Certainly, Hollywood doesn't do itself any favours. Having largely abandoned grown-up audiences (by which I mean anyone over the age of 16) to make films aimed at those with a mental age of less than 16, Hollywood has opened the door for European filmmakers to try to fill the gap. The film, which is about an manipulating, narcissistic headhunter and part-time cat burglar who comes a cropper when he makes enemies with a CEO and former soldier who is used to a seven-figure salery plus benefits, thinks it has something to say about corporate greed and moral bankruptcy in 21st century northern Europe, but its insights are ultimately trite and simplistic.<br />
<br />
The film fares better when it comes depicting those, odd uncomfortable details that so many Hollywood thrillers gloss over - weighting a body with rocks before pushing it into the water in order to ensure that it sinks to the bottom, befocomming progressively more dishevelled and pains as wounds are allowed to fester. But the film also has a pretty poor line in black humour that was ill-considered at best - climbing into 5' 6'' of sh*t while using a toilet role as a snorkel, impaling an attack dog on the spikes of a tractor-mounted tool - and really do not fit the chilly, 'realistic' schema from which the film draws inspiration.<br />
<br />
On the evidence of this passable but uneven thriller, Scandenavian filmmakers are not yet able to match Hollywood at their own game - a game that Hollywood filmmakers have laregly abandoned - but with the likes of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Killing TV series, there are not likely to be a shortage of these things for at least the next few years.Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-64995410419872406342012-04-15T13:26:00.004-07:002012-04-15T23:19:50.220-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">An Iranian Film</span><br />
<br />
As we are introduced to him at the start of this film, Jafar Panahi is a middle aged, middle class man living with his wife and daughter in a beautifully furnished flat replete with flat screen TVs, laptop computers and all of the other electronic consumer goods one might expect to see in a typical Western household. When he wakes up, his wife has already left for the day to deliver a New Year gift to her parents, but she still finds the time to leave a message on the answer phone reminding him to water the plants and feed their daughter's pet iguana.<br />
<br />
Roughly 10 minutes into the film, he breaks character and reveals to the audience that he has so far has omitted one crucial detail. Jafar Panahi is presently under house arrest in a Tehran tower block facing a six year jail term and a 20 year screenwriting and filmmaking ban. This is Not a Film documents his attempt to 'tell a film' over the course of a single day and it is one of the saddest, most heartfelt, but ultimately uplifting films I have seen in a very long time.<br />
<br />
Like the surface details of Panahi's life, the film is about much more than is immediately apparent. There is censorship writ large - Iran is a country where filmmakers must have their scripts approved before proceeding to production, and even then the risks associated with personal expression are significant. At one point, Pinahi recounts the secret police raid that led to his arrest. But the overall tone of the piece is boldly humanist.<br />
<br />
As he sets about the task of describing scenes from his unmade film script he becomes enthused, his passion spilling over as he maps out on the floor using yellow tape the outlines of the locations he had in his head. The unmade film about a lonely girl was intended to be shot entirely in one house - and Panahi has wonderful ideas for how the scenes might have played out, including camera angles and framing devices. However, he soon realises - the moment of revelation is captured perfectly, painfully on screen - if one could tell a film, why would one make a film? The quiet desperation of his plight is encapsulated in that phrase; this man, who feels compelled to tell stories on film has been barred from doing so.<br />
<br />
Then Panahi starts to show the audience scenes from his previous films and describes how the truly cinematic moments in those films are the details that he could not have directed or planned, things that were contributed by the actors or the location.<br />
<br />
I know that sounds like it is probably stifling and oppressive, but the political aspects are all subsumed in a rich, subtle human story - and, without wanting to downplay the tragedy of his situation in any way, by the time that Panahi is conversing with a young university student who is collecting the rubbish to help out his sister, one feels that there is hope.<br />
<br />
The film ends with the epitaph: 'Dedicated to Iranian filmmakers'.<br />
<br />
If it is playing near you, I highly recommend you check out This is Not a Film.Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-70584282563025458182012-04-11T14:03:00.015-07:002012-04-20T05:52:38.682-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Stop This Now</span><br />
<br />
I just came across a terrific interview with science fiction author and futurist Bruce Sterling (Involution Ocean, Islands in the Net, Heavy Weather) from a couple of years ago in which he discusses Hollywood science fiction cinema - and it put me in mind of the big film release from Universal Studios at the end of this week.<br />
<br />
Super-hipster Bruce refuses to be drawn on what he likes and what he does not like about modern American cinema and instead focuses on what he finds interesting. Asked if he thinks there is anything truly exceptional about modern science fiction cinema, Sterling deadpans: "Yer, the ancillary rights. The light sabres, the puppets the plastic dolls. I am not kidding, these things are worth billions of dollars. The Star Wars properties are some of the biggest entertainment properties in the world. There are Star Wars dairy products, there are Star Wars clothing products. You never would have seen that in the fifties, the sixties or so forth. It is really a major industry."<br />
<br />
I do not think it necessarily accurate to apply Sterling's jaundiced schema to every Hollywood science fiction film, but Battleship - possible the first film to be supported by both a NASDAQ-listed games company and the US Navy - practically demands such a cynical appraisal.<br />
<br />
At this point, I think it is important to clarify that I have not seen the film, nor do I have any intention of ever seeing it. I know it is a dangerous road to go down, but there are exceptions to every rule, and I have no hesitation slamming this sort of exploitative trash on purely ideological grounds. I feel sorry for the genuine innovators involved (the special effects guys and gals), your efforts deserve a better vehicle than this brainless brand management masquerading as cinema.<br />
<br />
It is the corruption of innocent childhood adventure that so offends. The fact that Battleship is a film based on a children's board game is a crime against cinema, but the crass corporatism and unabashed militarism of the entire enterprise makes it all the worse. I suppose writing about Hollywood cynicism is about as effective as stamping ones feet about death and taxes but here goes.<br />
<br />
Battleships is a game that is best played between a pair of people using two sheets of paper and a couple of pencils - the fact that Hasbro markets a set with little model boats one can affix to a plastic board is really by the by - the vast majority of the action takes place inside the players' head. Here, quiet and strategic reflection is inverted, turned into bombast and noise in the service of a derivative, hyperthyroid blockbuster with Transformers-style space ships, Iron Man-inspired aliens and enough explosions to make Michael Bay weep envious tears. Worse still is the fake Hollywood moralising and ham acting plastered over a badly disguised advert for the video game pleasures of modern military-industrial-drone warfare, with no wit, irony or satire to rescue it from complete moral oblivion.<br />
<br />
Enough is enough. Last year saw the release of more film sequels than any previous year in the history of recorded cinema. Nine out the top ten biggest box office films of the year were sequels - Harry Potter 8, Transformers 3, Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Fast and the Furious 5, Mission Impossible 4, Twilight 4 , Kung Fu Panda 2, The Hangover 2, Cars 2. The only film in the top ten that was not a sequel was The Smurfs...<br />
<br />
Hollywood films play to a narrower spectrum of people than ever before and draw their ideas from a narrower range of sources than ever before: sequels, comic books, computer games, theme park rides and now children's board games. As Bruce Sterling says: "When I see these properties I see industrialists trying to do two things. First they are trying to advance the state-of-the-art in graphic representation, and second they are trying to sell puppets, dolls, bumper stickers - and, at those two goals, they are succeeding splendidly."<br />
<br />
Well, that's as maybe, but I am not yet ready to give up the ghost. Not that I expect or even want Hollywood to start making European Art Films. But the rot, the cynicism, the hollow, dead-eyed corporatism was never this bad in the past. The original Star Wars was a proper film, with a story and some characters. In fact, it was only relatively recently that Hollywood decided it no longer to even attempt to make innovative and entertaining movies in order to make money. <br />
<br />
For what it is worth, my advice, therefore, is to avoid this film. Don't be tempted by the camp/kitsch appeal of watching macho mega-millions spent on an alien invasion; ignore the thought of Liam Neeson embarrassing himself with lines of dialogue like "boom" and "hit"; avoid the allure of Rihanna dressed in battle fatigues getting all hot and sweaty and shouty. I'm serious, the only way this sort of thing is going to stop is if people like you stop going to see it. And if you made if this far, I certainly mean you.<br />
<br />
This has been a public service announcement.Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-63777983387299798682012-04-09T13:41:00.004-07:002012-04-10T02:50:14.109-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Going Hungry</span><br />
<br />
The Hunger Games is a young adult novel with a massive teen following. If you hadn't heard of it until the film hit theatres, it is because you are officially old. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but it is best that you get used to these things sooner rather than later.<br />
<br />
Cards on the table. I have not read the book. Nor have I seen the Japanese film Battle Royale, with which The Hunger Games has drawn comparisons. Despite the protests of the author - Suzanne Collins says that she had not heard of Battle Royale until somebody else pointed out the similarities between it and her own novel - the shadow of Kinji Fukasaku's movie still hangs heavy over The Hunger Games.<br />
<br />
The film tells the story of the unlikely named heroine Katniss Everdeen and her life in District 12 of Panem, a society in which children between the ages of 12 and 18 are offered up as Tribute to the Capitol to compete in the annual Hunger Games, a Running Man style fight to the death, televised nationwide. Katniss' life is changed forever when her very young sister's name is pulled from The Lottery and she volunteers to compete in her stead. This means a trip to the decadent Capitol, a place where Viviane Westwood inspired outfits, ham acting and very dodgy CGI meet, after which Katniss and her 23 competitors enter the arena.<br />
<br />
First things first, the camera work is a problem. When Steven Spielberg innovated the shaky-cam style for Saving Private Ryan, it was an attempt to re-create a sense of the horrors of war and senseless death of the Normandy Landings. Since that time, the technique has been used as a shorthand by action movie directors attempting to borrow some of the visceral power of those sequences, minus the political context. The Hunger Games does this too excess. Early sequences recall scenes from the Extermination Camps in a way that is completely unearned and inappropriate for the movie. Then, once the action starts, it is almost impossible to follow. <br />
<br />
As a whole, the tone is far too po-faced, given the lightness with which the films apparent subject matter is touched upon. There is a sense (and it is always tricky to apply a sense of moral agency to a film, but here goes) that the people involved in the making of The Hunger Games think that they are saying much more profound than they actually are. If one wants to take the idea of kids killing kids for sport while adults and parents watch on stupefied seriously, the film would need to much more bleak than it is - and even then I would suggest that no parent, regardless of their desperation would stand for it. Alternatively, the film might have been much more satirical and biting, Battle Royale is shot though with dark, violent humour - The Hunger Games is almost bereft humour.<br />
<br />
Also, I'm not sure if I am allowed to say this - even the negative reviews I have read praised the performance of Jennifer Lawrence in the lead - but I found her sullen and one-note throughout. She does scared quite well (when she is about to enter the games), brooding and focused. But her line in tenderness and affection is much less convincing.<br />
<br />
Some of the manipulations by the media, and the sense of the contestants being slotted into their predetermined role, regardless of character, was good. But I still can't get over that premise (or perhaps, its poor execution) - its ludicrous isn't it?Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30850837.post-49719461505605280042012-03-25T10:34:00.007-07:002012-03-28T06:12:03.409-07:00<span style="font-size: x-large;">Long Live the New Flesh</span><br />
<br />
Few things this week made me quite as happy as this new film trailer:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="300" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DCFB-WPe9Ic" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
I love the black-on-black titles with their sickly neon corona. I love the dark industrial electronica. I love the glimpses of a seedy urban underworld. I love the surrealistic violence, and I love the grit and grain of the camera stock that evokes the best Cult Cinema of the 1980s. <br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://lunarpark.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/if-it-walks-like-duck-and-it-quacks.html">DuckDuckGo</a>, Cosmopolis is Greek for 'Universe City' or 'Order City'. It is also the name of a 2003 novel by North American satirist Don Delillo about A Day in the Life of a bored American billionaire, as he travels in his limousine through a disaster-hit New York on his way to have his hair cut. I have not yet decided whether or not to read the novel before I watch the film (as I surely will), it being the latest cinematic outing of one of my favourite writer-directors. <br />
<br />
David Cronenberg made his name in the late 1970s and early 1980s making relatively low-budget Canadian body-horror movies, during what is sometimes referred to as the 'plastic reality' era - an unimaginatively primitive time in which special effects crews worked with latex and cellulose to create practical and physical effects. Anti-pixel activists look back on that time as a Golden Age that gave birth to <i>An American Werewolf in London</i>, <i>The Thing</i> and <i>Dawn of the Dead</i>.<br />
<br />
The Sui Generis of plastic reality, however, was David Cronenberg, who elevated visual metaphor to the status of Art in the low-rent but high-minded <i>Videodrome</i>; and achieved mainstream commercial success with <i>The Fly</i> (1986), for which Jeff Goldblum should have won the Best Actor Oscar. <br />
<br />
In recent years, Cronenberg has used his considerable talents to tell stories about less outre subject matter - unassuming diner proprietors who may or may not be what they seem; murky Russian gangsters living in a modern, shadow London; and the historical tussle of ideas between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud (<i><a href="http://lunarpark.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/sometimes-cigar-is-just-cigar-dangerous.html">A Dangerous Method</a></i>). Cronenberg insists that he does not care about his previous films; his only thought is to give his present project 'what it needs'. Cronenberg is serious about the idea of film as Art. <br />
<br />
But...<br />
<br />
As a fan of the early, funny ones (sic) I am pleased to see Cronenberg return to the exploding heads, vaginal stomachs (see <i>Videodrome</i>) and horrific metamorphoses of the past. It is the rigour with which he addresses science-fiction subject matter that so inflames the imaginative intellect. <br />
<br />
Some will carp at the casting of Robert Pattinson, but, from a hard-headed economic perspective, his casting is a very wise business decision. The thought of innocent Twi-hards (for whom the names Cronenberg and DeLillo mean nothing) going to see <i>Cosmopolis</i> on the basis of Pattinson's presence alone makes me smile a wicked smile. <br />
<br />
(((Supplemental: If Pattinson can do <i>Cosmopolis</i> for Cronenberg, how about casting him as Case in <i>Neuromancer</i>?)))Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04639290322272451841noreply@blogger.com0