Red Means Stop, Do Not Go!

Last night, we watched the film "Run Lola Run" and had a great discussion afterwards which helped me understand it better than I ever had (this was my 4th time seeing RLR). We talked a lot last night about Lola seeming to have control over some situations, and definitely how her choices and actions had a domino effect on the world around her. In her discussions with Manni, you get the impression that she's the kind of person who always relies on herself and her ideas to solve all her problems, and has no doubts about the power she possesses. Manni asks her "What would you do if I died?" Lola responds "I wouldn't let you die."

The scenario of 20 minutes kept playing until the 2 characters got the desired result. They made a conscious decision (lying on the pavement thinking about prior conversations with each other) to not leave each other. What's interesting to me is that the last scenario is the only time when she (and Manni, with the blind woman) really opens herself up to outside intervention, and renders herself helpless w/out it (running w/ her eyes closed). In the first 2, she relies completely on herself to try to get what she needs, and it doesn't work. But then, after her options are exhausted, she opens herself up for serious help. she gets the message, goes into the Casino (the place of blind luck) to win the 126,000 in 3 minutes. But, did she realize that she needed outside intervention in order to get the ball to fall on 20? No, she screamed louder and longer than ever, once again believing that if she just wanted it badly enough, the world would bow at her feet and give it to her. and in the movie, it did.

This movie maker (Tom Tykwer) touched less on what he thinks actually makes everything happen, and more on how your perceptions on those matters change the way you behave. One could argue that it wasn't true intervention when the bus almost hit her in front of the Casino, that it was actually just another occurrance that had the effect of making her go to the Casino. On the same token, one could argue that it was actually intervention that made the ball fall on the 20, and that Lola just believed it was her power that was making that happen. These things are not the point of the movie, but it's fun to think about.

So how does our perceptions on these matters effect the way we behave? Anybody? This goes to the core of how we perceive actions and decisions, so how does it effect us... and how can we learn if our perceptions are correct? Any examples of times we would make decisions differently if we interpreted the world in a different light? ready... go
.

Icelandic Beauty

There is such a thing as beauty. It's real, and it exists today. Where does it come from? What causes it?

Last night I attended a Sigur Ros concert in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It made me stop to remember things. They were singing in Icelandic so I couldn't understand any of the words, yet the feeling I had was with perfect clarity. It's not often I can silence myself in order to receive this sort of feeling. Can anybody out there relate to this experience? I don't want to trivialize it with a lot of words, but I knew something real during that concert.

Please, I want to hear about the beauty that we know and experience. It doesn't have to be a concert, just think about it and talk about it. It's good to remember things.



P.S. This Saturday (25th) at 7 PM is the next gathering. If you need directions, get in touch with me. All are welcome

And the winner is....

I was speaking with Benjie the other day, and he brought up a good point. Why are the grammy's such a joke? Why is it that almost every award winner also happens to be among the leaders in sales for their albums? Is everything that's mainstream better than the bands that are not? And, most importantly to me... why does anybody still care about an awards show based more on popularity than on the art itself? Some ladies tell me that they actually watch it to see what everybody's wearing. This reason seems more legitimate to me than anything else at this point.

Are all awards ceremonies based more on popularity than on celebrating great art? I used to think that the Academy Awards had a lot of integrity, and there was a point in my life where I found out all the Best Picture winners for the last 60 years so I could watch them all. Then something happened. Bjork's performance in "Dancer in the Dark" lost to Julia Roberts in "Erin Brokovich" for best actress. This changed me in a profound way. Honestly.

I hadn't always agreed with the Oscar selections in the past, but there was something significant I realized after that moment: Award ceremonies are about making money. From start to finish. All the stars arrive to be scrutinized by the fashion police, making money for fashion designers every time one of their names gets dropped. Don't forget about ratings for the networks an hour before the ceremony has even started, it's a big plus. Then the long drawn out ceremony, putting in more special guest appearances, cameo's (don't forget commercials, we need our sponsors happy!), making you tune in for hours and hours to finally get to the culmination moment that they've been building up to for weeks, with talk on radio stations, newspaper articles speculating on the winners, etc. oh, and the ratings are still going strong.

What I needed to know was this... it's not about popularity necessarily, it's about money first and foremost. What's more popular just happens to help make them more money, b/c people are more interested in the lovely Julia Roberts winning an award than the kind of freakish Bjork stepping up there. People don't care what Bjork is wearing to the Oscars, b/c nobody knew that she would even be there, b/c nobody saw her movie. Therefore, change the channel. Right?

Basically, whatever is going to make them money will be recognized as such. A day may come when a film like Dancer in the Dark can make them money, and then they'll include it. Until then, there's the Sundance Channel and many other organizations that attempt to celebrate art for art, not just for money. But then there is us. The public. What is our role? Thoughts, anyone??



Bjork

Question the Questioner

What are the agendas behind films? Are they designed to brainwash us into thinking a certain way? They raise questions, and provide (usually) answers. It can be done through our connecting with a character, or a story line hits close to home, or the visual effects can wow our minds into a state of numb submission. Basically, a lot of hard hard work goes into concealing and revealing the story/messages of each film.

What about a film that is just for entertainment? Certainly there are no messages in there that are deep and disturbing, right? Now, understand right away that I'm not trying to scare people into fleeing from this art form (watching movies) b/c they are afraid of falling victim to its snares. There is a wealth of helpful life lessons that can be learned from the screen in front of you, just like words in a book can speak straight into a person's life and help change them forever. But with such power, there needs to be an awareness of what we're doing. Nothing great in life ever comes easy, and if we want world changing truth to connect in us, we're going to have to be willing to help change the world. If this doesn't make sense to somebody, hopefully it will someday.

I don't think that the approach to films should be so intellectual that we miss the heart level things they are offering. If we're so concerned with the framing and the lighting and the possible symbolism in the background, we can miss things right in front of our noses. Not all films are brilliant. Sometimes we're looking for buried treasure that the film does not offer. But believe me, there is almost always more there for us than what we are taking away.

Here's the hardest part. Once you get your mind open to the fact that they're trying to feed you a worldview, enticing you and even expecting you to swallow it, you'll start to look for things. And once you start to look for it, you'll find it almost everywhere, trust me. The hard part is not identifying what messages you are being sent; they're all over the place waiting to be found. What's hard is questioning the film that is raising these questions within you. They don't have to be right. Their messages don't have to be true, and you don't have to agree. You don't even have to agree in order to like the movie! Think of a movie as a conversation with a person (b/c in a way, it sort of is). I don't always enjoy conversing with people I agree with. At times, they express themselves in a way that puts me off; or any number of things can affect whether or not I enjoy the discussion. But I agree with their views. Other times a person can express their sentiments in a way that is much more compelling, thought provoking and humble... but I end up not agreeing. I love them for making me think about it the way that they did, even though I don't share all the same views. This is true of movies, also.

Wherever you are and whatever your experience is with understanding this part of the world around you, don't be fooled. Don't fool yourself into thinking "I'll never understand, b/c my mind can't look for things." Don't fool yourself into thinking that there is nothing rewarding about watching a film you might not agree with. Is it ever rewarding to hear a fresh opinion outside of your own? Seek them out; they will sharpen your own worldviews, and sometimes, possibly, maybe... change you for the better.

Director Stanley Kubrick

You say you want a resolution

One of the issues brought up in our discussion of Tape was the lack of resolution. Many people have offered their own interpretations/conclusions, which may well be valid, but I think the brilliance of the film is that it doesn't give enough information for viewers to say, "This is what happened." It's like one of those logic story-problems you do in Jr. High where you have to answer "Not enough information provided." While this is what I liked best about the movie, the lack of resolution frustrated some people. And that leads to my question:

Why do we trust the resolution offered in films?

Movies without resolution frustrate viewers because most movies resolve all the issues at the end. Do we ever think to question those resolutions? One of Ryan's goals in Mind over Media seems to be questioning the worldviews presented in the films we watch. If a filmmaker has a worldview that is different from or even opposed to our own, why would we accept their resolution?

This question rises from one of my favorite issues in literary criticism, the omniscient narrator. When we read a novel or watch a movie that has a narrator or a point-of-view character from whose perspective we receive the story, why do we accept their pont of view? When a movie wraps everything up into a neat little ball, why are we satisfied with it?

Viewers of Tape, as well as the characters themselves, have no objective perspective from which to conclude "what happened." While this frustrates us, it should also remind us that no one has an objective perspective. All stories, films, movies, etc., are mediated and told from a certain perspective. Most movies help or even force us to forget that. Tape makes it abundantly clear.


The great thing about blogging is that even after someone posts a new thread, you can still comment on previous topics (the pity is, no one does). Since this is some people's first experience blogging, we can avoid the bad habits prevalent in the blogosphere. Remember, the post at the top is not the only or the most important one. Keep the conversations going.

what exactly happened?

Hello to all,

I'm writing from Tucson, Arizona and have been invited by the Great Ryano to be a part of the Mind over Media discussion. I must say 'Tape' was very powerful indeed. Ryan, I ask of your interpretation of the film, is it true you believe Amy felt there was no crime? The impression I had, even though she talked it off and around it and away from it, was that based on her original reluctance of being in the same room with Jon, her outburst at the end of the movie daming him, and her sarcastic remarks "yea, I let all the guys hold their hand over my mouth," was that she had been savagely raped. It seemed to me she was guarding some very wounded and painful memories and not ready/wanting to confront that incident without warning. I feel the major question is then: could women confront their attackers face to face without the court system and feel vindicated/forgivness regarding a violent crime? Amy was a prosecuting attorny, but would she have known how face Jon and to feel emotional resolution about the incident if she had wanted to? In the movie she did take the upper hand and play tricks on the two men and give them harsh words, but did any of that truely give her satisfaction? Would she/do we even know what to do -- vindication or forgiveness?

-Robert